Driver to drive?

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:27:03 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:


The President's overall approval is 49%- that means *most* people think
he is *not* doing a good job. Bush is way behind the curve for an
incumbent, the American people do not want him for one more year much
less four more. Lessee, 60 some odd days and he's out of there.


This worries me. Since the nazis are criminally insane, what might
they do when they lose? They have no qualms about sacrificing lives
for the sake of maintaining their facade - might they start nuking
people, just to crush dissent?

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.

Thanks
Rich

No- they will throw the neocons out of the party. The conservatives
really hate them and want them gone.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 1 Nov 2004 17:51:45 -0800, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:


xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message news:<ipibo0tgm21pg694r4qvguogo1jqen4e84@4ax.com>...

On 31 Oct 2004 17:27:48 -0800, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:


In a CBS News/New York Times poll out Sunday

Number, numbers

did they mention that
Bush is a dangerous idiot
?

No, but they did mention that Kerry is a war criminal.


As is Dan Rather ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Yeah- but Dan has enough money to buy and sell you 100x over- guess that
makes him a better person eh, small fry?

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <cm6j68$1qr$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <6c71b322.0411011526.7e518017@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam.

I don't think I ever said that. I said he never said that he committed
war crimes. There is a huge difference, because the word atrocities
covers a lot of things that are not war crimes, doubly so when it is being
used in common language and not in a legal sense.

Mostly, those atrocities that Kerry lied about (or committed) were/are
unacceptable acts, or Kerry told unacceptable lies. Frankly, Kerry's
admission appears to have been partially coached by a lawyer, and
it was good for Kerry to avoid a legally direct admission.

Choosing between someone who might have (legally) avoided some
service vs. someone who were disposed to commit atrocities (and
either admitted to them, or lied about them), those making choices
based upon bragging about military service will have to avoid
the liar/those who committed atrocities. Any kind of claim that
Bush might not have committed an atrocity because he didnt'
have an opportunity is alot like any other kind of criminal situation...
---------------

Bush committed the crime of desertion for MONTHS, but he has never
had enough people who know that want to prosecute him for it. This
is because Republicans are basically dishonest thieves, as ALL
Rightists are, because they believe that SOME people deserve to
own the lives and rightful property of others they thereby enslave,
despite doing little or no productive work. Republican Rightists
promote Feudalism.

There are some of us who wouldn't voluntarily/knowingly commit an
atrocity -- whether or not we were placed into the situation.
-------------------

The Zimbardo study at Stanford proves that even without the threat
of summary execution, mere peer-pressure and authority pressure is
enough to break the typical "will" about such things IMMEDIATELY!

Someone,
like Kerry, who is in command of a group of men should have enough
self control and discipline to avoid participating in atrocities.
--------------------------------

He regarded the entire Vietnam WAR as an atrocity, but only in
retrospect, he believed in it and volunteered for it initially,
till he discovered the Dirty Truth about it, that it was a shill
for US corporations to try to gain a slave colony in SE Asia and
offshore oil rights off Vietnam, which are very rich and still
unexploited!.

Again, it is most likely that Kerry had told lies about the atrocities.
------------------

No, it is far more likely that you're a shit-fucking liar shading
the truth with your lies.

Too many of his various claims over the last few years were also
somewhat dishonest. Kerry seems to have a pattern of telling
casual lies.

John
--------------

You're a twisting liar.

In Vietnam, soldiers were regularly threatened with summary field
execution if they did not commit atrocities that would have been
regarded as war crimes had they been selected for judge advocate
review and courts martial. That was one of the facts that led to
the demise of the US in Vietnam, and recognized criminality before
the majority of the American People at that time for any president
that kept that fiasco going. In 1969 US women were 69% pro-war, in
1971 they were 69% against the war! No US war has ever proceeded
to victory once the women turned against it. This and MORE IS what
Kerry said back then, and what he meant!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <6c71b322.0411011526.7e518017@posting.google.com>,
soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) writes:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam. Well here is the transcript from
Kerry's appearance on "Meet the Press". You decide for yourself:

(Videotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
of other soldiers have committed.

(End videotape)

It is very true that Kerry is an admitted de-facto war criminal
[]
John
-------------

Once more you're lying like the human turd you are.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <cm5m9l$clf$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <cm58il$1e64$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]
Yes, I heard it also... He said (paraphrased), that some attrocities
(war crimes) happened in Vietnam, and he said that he participated in
some also.

There were a couple of cases where Kerry had either admitted or strongly
implied his complicity in war crimes. It is proven that Kerry is either
an admitted war criminal or a liar about very important issues.

I suggest that anyone who thinks there is a shred of truth to Dyson's
claim go read the transcript. You will find that Dyson is the proven
liar.

(Note that this isn't the only example of Kerry's claims. Too often,

people select the most benign -- and also select only his horrid
testimony in front of (after) legislative group, but also he has made his
claims about being a war criminal in other contexts. There would
be SOME excuse if he only said it once, but he has made the war
criminal claim in several contexts.)

Remember, Kerry had made other similar comments in testimony (remember that?)
and also in other public statements. The claims have obviously been
legally coached, but have been consistent enough to prove that Kerry
is either a war criminal or a liar (probably both.)


(This is from a post by Tom Seim -- I saw this also on
Meet the Press on Sunday) Too bad that the pro-Kerry people are
so under-informed that they have to go to their propaganda sites
instead of watching the original broadcasts like on Sunday.
""
""
""
"" There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
"" committing atrocities in Vietnam. Well here is the transcript from
"" Kerry's appearance on "Meet the Press". You decide for yourself:

"" (Videotape, April 18, 1971):
""
"" MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
"" that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
"" of other soldiers have committed.
""
"" (End videotape)
""

Note that this quote is one of several Kerry-isms with similar wording. Note
that it is very clear that the wording was crafted with legal advice...

For those telling lies, refer to people like Ken Smith who claim that
Kerry said nothing like what I claim. This proves that Kerry has indeed
made claims quite similar to what I claim, and in fact his crafting
shows that he knew exactly that he was trying to damage the US military
and his friends in the military. (Or perhaps, Kerry was just admitting
that he really was a two bit war criminal, perhaps even truly a traitor?)

Is Ken Smith incompetent, just overwhelmed by his propaganda sites, or
is he really dishonest? At least, Tom has properly found a site, but
I am cursed with a nearly perfect memory -- except I don't always remember
the cites, but do remember the original information. I don't belong
to Lexus/Nexus -- but Stratfor is helpful.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <cm6nek$632$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <6c71b322.0411011521.14809f4e@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Gee, I thought the president's job was to lead the country.

.. and there is where you are so terribly wrong. The president like all
the others are elected to represent the people.

Actually, you have it confused. It is the legislature (most specifically,

the House of Representatives) that represents the people. Most accurately,
the Senate more represents the states, and the President is supposed to
be the head of state and to be essentially the President/CEO of the
government. The president is also the civilian leader of the armed forces.

It is very inaccurate to make the claim that the purpose of the 'head of
state' is to represent the people!!!

It is not their job to
try to bend the people to their will.

That is true -- but I don't know anyone who has made that claim.

It is their job to see to the
countries defence and the general welfair.

That is a partial description, but very incomplete (misspelling ignored.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <6c71b322.0411011751.2a73c5c1@posting.google.com>,
soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) writes:

xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message news:<ipibo0tgm21pg694r4qvguogo1jqen4e84@4ax.com>...
On 31 Oct 2004 17:27:48 -0800, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

In a CBS News/New York Times poll out Sunday

Number, numbers

did they mention that
Bush is a dangerous idiot
?

No, but they did mention that Kerry is a war criminal.

The sad thing is that Kerry being an admitted war criminal

(or liar who bears horrendous false testimony against his peers)
is perfectly clear to be seen. The network news broadcasts
have shown Kerry's claims in different forms (not just one time.)

Kerry's admissions have obviously been carefully crafted
(playing games with the word atrocity vs. war crime, probably
to keep him from a trial, since "atrocity" is less likely to
put him into prison, where he actually belongs), but it is quite
clear that anyone with a liberal, open mind will see John Kerry
as the perpetrator of war crimes that he really is. In
todays parlance, he'd be effectively guilty of 'hate crimes',
but in a wartime situation. Destroying a peasants' hut is
a pretty despicable action, especially for a future president
of the USA. I'd much rather have a Canada draft dodger/evader
than a murderer of poor peasants or destroyers of their little huts
for president.

Kerry is obviously a bad man, a very very bad man with a
very lackluster Senate record. It would be good for Kerry,
the war criminal (and likely destroyer of very poor peoples huts),
to keep on trying to improve his Senate record.

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

Joerg wrote...

Joel Kolstad wrote,

I'm surprised isolated channels aren't available on more scopes as a
factory option; aftermarket differential adapters are not exactly cheap.

Maybe the market is too small. Most signals don't need to measured down
to DC so I usually take a #43 toroid and make a little bifilar
transformer when an isolated situation arises. Nowadays I use them at
the tip of the coax, not at the scope end. Once I didn't and the BNC
jacket touched the metal frame of a scope. Bzzzzt...fump.

A bifilar transformer - for high-frequency signals only?


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:


The Bush criminals in collaboration with Matt Drudge are
starting to make their move to disrupt the national elections.
It is now clear they *will be* voted OUT OF OFFICE, and the
time to act is upon them. This tape is a total fabrication.
Apparently it was too much for the zealots to forego discussion
of "same sex marriage" in this supposed Al-Qaeda terror
production, and this will be the last straw.


The origins of this tape will be traced back to the Bush
administration, and they will be removed from office:


Do you have any evidence of this that you can provide, or are you
just stating your personal unsubstantiated opinion?

CIA cannot confirm the authenticity of the tape- headline today.
This means it is a fake because there is very little chance they
could not confirm a tape with authentic Al-Qaeda origin.


Very interesting take on logic: if can't be proved authentic, *must*
be fake.

Did I say that, poser. I said "very little chance".

And infering from your original post, if fake, it *must*
come from Bush.

If it is fake then it would almost certainly be connected with the Bush
campaign- that campaign was clearly based on a fear platform- the VP
candidate outright warned America *will* be attacked if they lose.

I now understand how you arrive at your conclusions.

I don't really think you do, poser.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <pan.2004.11.02.02.22.16.648656@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:15:59 +0000, John S. Dyson wrote:

The lefty/liars keep on forgetting that there is a right way
of doing things and the wrong way (that is, the unethical, illegal
and/or immoral way is apparently the leftist way -- given the
behavior of the American leftist.)

Nobody can top the Bushites for unethical, illegal AND immoral:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6819.htm

Remember: biased sites and biased sources aren't useful for gaining

knowledge. You seem to be in love with vacuous assertions, but
forget the need for a relationship (hopefully intimate) with reality.
My cite is from Meet the Press, and can be found if you look for it.

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar, and Dyson is a nazi sympathizer.

You make assertions without any relationship to reality.

Remember: John Kerry is a proven war criminal or liar about it...
!!
!!(Videotape, April 18, 1971):
!!
!!MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
!!that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
!!of other soldiers have committed.
!!

Also there has been other similar more official testimony that only
helps to strengthen the position that Kerry is incredibly ethically
corrupt.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <pan.2004.11.02.02.31.55.374428@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:51:11 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm6j68$1qr$3@blue.rahul.net:

In article <6c71b322.0411011526.7e518017@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam.

I don't think I ever said that. I said he never said that he
committed war crimes. There is a huge difference, because the word
atrocities covers a lot of things that are not war crimes, doubly so
when it is being used in common language and not in a legal sense.
Since he said "thousands of other soldiers", we know that he means
something that happened a lot. Since we don't know the full context
of this question from this video, we must refer to other information
to see what specific actions he means. It is obvious that he is
refering to actions he regrets and that they are common actions. It
is also clear that he does not mean war crimes.

No,Kerry claimed that all Us soldiers were war criminals.

When?

Actually, Kerry claimed that many were war criminals (or those who

commit atrocities.) Most likely, Kerry was actually generalizing from
his own command (Kerry was commanding the boat, and was likely trying
to diffuse his own criminal behavior.) Kerry really appears to be someone
who is over compensating with remorse from his own criminal behavior.

It would likely be better to have a disserter to Canada instead of
a murderer or someone who destroyed many very poor families huts.

John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.10.30.20.38.16.629248@example.net...

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:18:58 +0200, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:cm0ejh$1dj$1@news.iquest.net...

that way. The 'throwing' out of office attitude really does show a
violent mentality. Our system does NOT 'throw' someone out of
office,

What the heck. For all I care someone shoots him out of his office.

Changed the subject line.

I don't think Mr. Dyson is evil, but merely a dupe. He's being
manipulated, as are all the faithful, by a double-whammy of irrational
fear, and knee-jerk jingoistic faith in their savior, George the
Infallible.

And I've chenged the subject line too - the hating has to stop
somewhere.

Okay, tar & feathers it is.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Julie]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:


The Bush criminals in collaboration with Matt Drudge are
starting to make their move to disrupt the national elections.
It is now clear they *will be* voted OUT OF OFFICE, and the
time to act is upon them. This tape is a total fabrication.
Apparently it was too much for the zealots to forego discussion
of "same sex marriage" in this supposed Al-Qaeda terror
production, and this will be the last straw.


The origins of this tape will be traced back to the Bush
administration, and they will be removed from office:


Do you have any evidence of this that you can provide, or are you
just stating your personal unsubstantiated opinion?

CIA cannot confirm the authenticity of the tape- headline today.
This means it is a fake because there is very little chance they
could not confirm a tape with authentic Al-Qaeda origin.


Very interesting take on logic: if can't be proved authentic, *must*
be fake.

Did I say that, poser. I said "very little chance".

Poser? whatever.

Your quote: "This means it is a fake..."

I'll equate this to my quote of "*must* be fake" -- variations in
interpretation are minimal, at best.

Your "very little chance" quote was with respect to the ability of the CIA to
confirm.

And infering from your original post, if fake, it *must*
come from Bush.

If it is fake then it would almost certainly be connected with the Bush
campaign- that campaign was clearly based on a fear platform- the VP
candidate outright warned America *will* be attacked if they lose.

Regardless of the Bush platform, a connection can't be assumed unless proven.
You merely have jumped to what appears to be a personal supposition supporting
your beliefs/ideas, and in actuality, has absolutely no relevance to the
situation, until proven otherwise. When that proof comes, please let me/us
know.

I now understand how you arrive at your conclusions.

I don't really think you do, poser.

Poser? Why does a discussion have to get personal?

Fred -- answer me one thing: do you really think that your messages are clear,
concise, and free from an unbiased opinion? I'm trying to be *rational* here,
I don't always succeed, but I'm trying.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:13:36 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Well, the Chinese won't nuke us if we owe them a lot of money.

There's a point.

Jon

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <4186FAE0.3050604@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

Tom Seim wrote:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam. Well here is the transcript from
Kerry's appearance on "Meet the Press". You decide for yourself:

(Videotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
of other soldiers have committed.

(End videotape)

You're are not very high up on the evolutionary ladder apparently. What
Kerry considered an atrocity after the war was considered standard
military action during the war.

John Kerry, being a commander, was obviously assisting in committing and

ordering atrocities. He admitted to complicity.

Whether or not anyone else is a combat veteran doesn't change the fact
that John Kerry has effectively claimed being a war criminal (his words
sanitized for legal reasons, obviously.) Voting for a war criminal would
be ethically and morally MUCH WORSE than voting for an AWOL or draft
dodger who went to Canada. The idea of someone who knowingly PERSONALLY
destroyed a familys means of earning a living, or killing numerous family
members because of (orders) being president of the USA IN THESE MODERN
TIMES is disgusting.

We don't need to let that war criminal, Kerry, become president. Murdering
for absolutely no reason, in the heat of war, and destroying very poor
peoples little huts is heinous. Kerry has shown other abhorrent attitudes
and behaviors.

John Kerry is obviously a bad, bad man. He might even be a very evil
man, but that isn't any persons' place to judge, but it appears to be true.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <418700BB.5BFA@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <cm6j68$1qr$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <6c71b322.0411011526.7e518017@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam.

I don't think I ever said that. I said he never said that he committed
war crimes. There is a huge difference, because the word atrocities
covers a lot of things that are not war crimes, doubly so when it is being
used in common language and not in a legal sense.

Mostly, those atrocities that Kerry lied about (or committed) were/are
unacceptable acts, or Kerry told unacceptable lies. Frankly, Kerry's
admission appears to have been partially coached by a lawyer, and
it was good for Kerry to avoid a legally direct admission.

Choosing between someone who might have (legally) avoided some
service vs. someone who were disposed to commit atrocities (and
either admitted to them, or lied about them), those making choices
based upon bragging about military service will have to avoid
the liar/those who committed atrocities. Any kind of claim that
Bush might not have committed an atrocity because he didnt'
have an opportunity is alot like any other kind of criminal situation...
---------------
Bush committed the crime of desertion for MONTHS, but he has never
had enough people who know that want to prosecute him for it.

Morally, someone who has committed atrocities is MUCH MUCH worse

than someone who might have disappeared on paper. There is no real
proof that GWB did anything wrong. There are multiple admissions
and plausible facts on the ground that Kerry had ordered and commmitted
atrocities. (One of the original witnesses against GWB had alzheimers,
was coached, and eventually found that the information wasn't reliable.)

It seems like Bush probably did (but maybe not) what he was supposed to
have done, and the need for his area of expertise had died out at the
end of the war... Even if Bush was lazy, and didnt' follow through, he
certainly didn't commit attrocities like the war criminal John Kerry did.

This is definitely a lesser of two evils, and there is definite EVIL on
the Kerry side, where the worst is laziness on the Bush side.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <4187010B.730E@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <6c71b322.0411011526.7e518017@posting.google.com>,
soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) writes:
There have been claims on SED that Kerry has never admitted to
committing atrocities in Vietnam. Well here is the transcript from
Kerry's appearance on "Meet the Press". You decide for yourself:

(Videotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
of other soldiers have committed.

(End videotape)

It is very true that Kerry is an admitted de-facto war criminal
[]
John
-------------
Once more you're lying like the human turd you are.

READ AGAIN (meet the press, played on this last Sunday):

(Videotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands
of other soldiers have committed.

(End videotape)

It is very true that Kerry is an admitted de-facto war criminal.

John

 

[Scott Stephens]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:28:09 GMT, Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net
wrote:


Besides the US is full of peasants. AFAIK, Most people do not own
capital assets. Most people use fiat paper currency, and are at the
mercy of those running the global monopoly game. And calling the mixed
economy a monopoly game is too charitable. The slaves on Uncle Sam's
plantation are chained with fiat currency.


Paper money is handy, but people here probably used credit or debit
cards, and checks, more than cash; bushels of wheat or gold nuggets
are clumsy for most transactions. Whether a person spends or saves is
usually a choice. But a peasant or a serf is a captive to the land he
farms, and can't leave. We don't do that in the USA.

Commodity markets equalize the price of commodities to the common
dollar. The dollar is inflated as our debt is monetized in the global
economy, so I should be crying for foreign serfs that are being enslaved
(relative to American labor regulation and standards) more than ourselves.

They are the ones (Chinese, et.) that are giving us cheap imports while
suffering from polluted environments, sweat-shop conditions, et.

Cheap, loose credit also means the good my money pursues cost more, my
savings reap less interest, while my irresponsible comrade citizens sink
into debt and default on the credit. The banks write bad debt off their
taxes. You don't find the government telling them to eat bad debts, oh
no. But you won't escape your bad debts to the IRS or GSL, oh no. Our
pimping Uncle Sam will be sure to get his pound of flesh.

But I could find plenty of cases where the government tells you what you
can and can't do with and on your private property because it is a "wet
land", the habitat of a sacred snail, river-front, et.

And if I must pay tax on any property, is it really mine, or am I just
leasing it from the taxing agent who allows me to keep possession of it?

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************

 

[Country Loon]

"BZ" <not@available.now> wrote in message
news:1A%ed.10764$p87.416@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Hi everyone,

I hope someone can help me with this. My daughter is doing a
school project in which she will make a diagram of an atom
using LED's stuck through a foam board, and power the LED's
with 9-volt batteries. I'm an electronic no-nothing, and have
some very simple questions.

First some description of the project: it's a foam board from
Wal-Mart (basically two pieces of poster board with 1/4" of
lightweight plastic foam in the middle). She will have a
cluster of diodes in the middle to serve as the nucleus of the
atom, surrounded by other diodes representing electrons. She
plans to stick the wire leads of the diodes directly into the
foam board from the front and make all the connections in the
back. There will be three separate circuits so that protons,
neutrons, and electrons can each be lit up separately. Each
circuit will have its own rocker switch on the front and will
be powered by a 9v battery. We have some 270 ohm resistors
and figure on using two in series in each circuit.

My questions are:

1) Will sticking the bare wire diode leads through the foam
board create any kind of fire hazard? I'm concerned about
bare wire on paper, but have no idea whether a 9v battery will
generate enough heat to create a problem.

2) The diodes are rated 3v, 20 mA, and she plans to hook up
as many as 22 diodes in series in one of the circuits. Will
one 9v battery do it, or will she need 1 battery for every
three diodes in series?

3) Can she get away with twisting and taping the leads and
wires, or is this something that really should be soldered to
get a reliable connection?

4) Is there anything else I should be asking but am not?

Any help is appreciated. I'm trying to avoid having us spend
many hours constructing this thing only to find out it will
never work.

Thanks!

She will need a quantum noise generator for the led and a dimensional
transporters so that the LED can jump from energy state to state.If it is
observed then the electron (LED) will change state.Quite difficult.The
electrons in an atom do not rotate like planets around the sun.

Tom

 

[Clarence]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.29.21.00.19.145021@example.net...

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:09:24 +0000, Clarence wrote:


"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:41828e0b$0$568$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

Yes, and the entire world is stupid. But I pray that Bush wins. I have
this great design in mind of a swastika and stripes flag, and I hope to
make a million bucks selling this new U.S.A. flag. I really hopes he wins,
otherwise I'm stuck with the merchandise.

Maybe your on to something after all.
What you call a "swastika" is the American Indian symbol denoting the
rotation
of the stared in the heavens, the passage of time. It would be truly an
American symbol and get ride of the bias created when people can not
separate
an ancient honorable symbol from a political extremist who abused it.

The Elephant and Donkey, and the swastika need to returned to symbols
worthy of
respect!

In case you'd care to surprise the living fuck out of all of us and
check a fact, you'd find that the Hitler Nazi swastika was the mirror-
image of the Native American symbol.

Cheers!
RIch

He was trying to be unique. So? Maybe he wanted time to go backwards. But
only you would notice!